Search This Blog

Monday, September 21, 2015

Above: An image of Nils Karleby:Adam Ford's account of 'Socialism as Regulation' has some things in common with the thinking of this important Swedish Social Democrat

Dr Tristan Ewins

Veteran Australian Labor Party activist and blogger
Adam Ford has put forward a critique of socialist metanarratives insofar as
they retain a commitment to what I would personally define as a ‘democratic
mixed economy’. Specifically, by this I
infer a mixed economy including a very robust public sector, but also a broader
‘democratic sector’ including various co-operative models, as well as
co-determination, democratic collective capital mobilisation and so on.Partly in response to my own consideration
of the substance of modern socialism, instead Adam Ford proposes a reformed
socialist project; one which breaks away from prior emphases on Marx, and prior
emphases on public ownership.Ford reserves
the right to define socialism however he chooses, and not necessarily follow in
the footsteps of Marx, or anyone else really.Though in a Bernsteinian fashion (ie: after Eduard Bernstein) he argues that socialism is a premise from
which we depart rather than an ‘end destination’.

“The light on the hill is as a beacon, not a point of
arrival. It guides us forward, rather than telling us where to stop.”

So in its emerging incarnation Adam
sees the concrete form of modern socialism as comprising the quite vigorous and
indeed aggressive regulation of
capitalism.Though he is not very specific in detailing
what form this regulation would take.Nonetheless, perhaps he has something in common with the Swedish
theorist Nils Karleby- who saw
regulation like a peeling away of an onion – where the prerogatives of capital
were progressively removed ‘until nothing is left’. For example: I would speculate that this could
take the form of legislated provisions for co-determination, or industrial
rights including minimum wages and conditions. (though to be honest this is
against the grain of so-called ‘reform of the labour market’ under successive
governments, Labor and Liberal)Karleby was critical of narrow interpretations
of socialism which focused only on
nationalisation.

For Adam Ford ‘socialist outcomes’ do
not adhere to “pre-determined” and “known” “socialist structures”.And rather than comprising an enduring beacon
for socialists, the figure of Karl Marx is seen as imposing a “straight-jacket”
on socialist thought.

Finally, Adam Ford condemns not only ‘command economies’ as ‘stupid’; but he
applies the same judgement to mixed economies where the public sector extends
beyond “natural public monopolies”, and certain essential services and
infrastructure which the market would not provide via its own devices.

What follows is a response to Adam Ford’s arguments.

The hinting of a Bernsteinian angle is appreciated.Bernstein had a lot of relevant things to say
about socialism and ethics, socialism and liberalism, and the notion there no
absolutely-final ‘end point’ for socialism.

Though Bernstein had also insisted of Marx’s theory:

“The fall of the profit rate is a fact, the advent of
over-production and crises is a fact, periodic diminution of capital is a fact,
the concentration and centralisation of industrial capital is a fact, the
increase of the rate of surplus value is a fact.”(Bernstein, Pp 41-42)

Ford is
right to suggest that in Marxism we do not have the meaning of ‘life, the
universe and everything’.Ethics, for
instance, was a blind spot for Marx and many who followed in his tradition and
in his name.As was the tendency of
Marxists – not least of all Lenin – to pose socialism and liberalism
practically as polar opposites.(Whereas
for Bernstein socialism comprised ‘liberalism’s spiritual successor’)
Certainly it is fashionable in this day and age to decry the ‘old’ socialism.
The neo-liberal Ideology remains largely hegemonic throughout much of the
world.Public ownership is seen as an
anachronism.‘The market’ is revered;
‘command economies’ are reviled.And
indeed – even for those proposing a democratic mixed economy, the spectre of
the ‘command economy’ hangs over all debate as if there really is no ‘middle
path’ or otherwise diverging paths from those of neo-liberalism and so-called
‘state socialism’.Though to be fair to
Adam Ford he personally diverges significantly from neo-liberalism in proposing
a thorough regime of regulation.And his
allowance for natural public monopoly puts him at odds with the likes of Mises
or Hayek.

As already observed: Nils Karleby
shared similar notions to Ford in the sense of emphasising regulation as the
substance of socialisation; the means of negating ‘capitalist prerogatives’. Though
Karleby himself had also argued:

“How can one imagine a social transformation other than by the growth
of collective property at the expense of private property, and through
legislative changes together with social and cultural policy measures, and
through changes in property rights brought about by the influence of free
organisations?”

And further Karleby anticipates a

“grinding away of capitalist society in the true sense, a steady
progressive growth of new social forms.”(Karleby in Tilton, p 82)

Hence despite his emphasis on
regulation-as-socialism Karleby does not deny the mixed economy.Though perhaps his position is also
suggestive of strategies such as democratic collective capital formation for
example.

Again: Ford rejects “predetermined” “socialist structures”. Most particularly
this appears to relate to state ownership ; but perhaps it also applies to
collective forms of property posed in opposition to exploitative labour-capital
relations.Though Ford also suggests
“democratic markets”.What could this
mean?

In truth I have considered “democratic markets” myself.But here I conceive of a wide variety of
producer and consumer co-operative forms, as well as collective capital
formation and so on.I think of workers
and consumers organising collectively and co-operatively in the very midst of
markets. And I envisage of the state playing an enabling role here: via state
aid, including cheap credit, tax breaks and so on.

Still - any role for
the state is really the rare exception for Ford.But is a truly robust mixed economy really
“stupid”?

True: Ford and I agree on the need for “natural public monopolies”.Ford is not specific, but for me here I think
of energy, water, communications and transport infrastructure. I also think of
near-monopolies in education.But why
not extend strategic socialisation beyond these strictly conceived
boundaries?Government business
enterprises can enhance competition in areas as diverse as banking and health
insurance; also providing progressive cross-subsidisation where that makes
sense. Dividends can potentially be socialised into the tens of billions
empowering the extension of welfare and the social wage.In areas such as mining partial socialisation
via some ‘super profits tax’ made sense ; but opposition to a direct public
stake here could be seen as Ideological. In any case - even a public sector
mining company would operate in a global and competitive market. As could other
competitive state enterprises.

Furthermore: ‘the market’ could no-doubt ‘find a way’ to intrude upon just
about every facet of our existence. But should we allow for it to do so?Are ‘markets’ and the profit motive
appropriate in Aged Care for example?The public sector needs to intervene where the market fails.And market failure takes many forms. This
includes the lack of democratic forms; the exploitation of vulnerable people; as
well as ‘Planned obsolescence’ and the creation of oligopolies and monopolies
which fleece consumers. Also there is the potential for neglect of consumer
minorities whose ‘market power’ is not sufficient to ensure the provision of
the highest quality goods and services at competitive prices.Perhaps Ford allows for this final case in
his model, however.Though the question
remains: how would that work?

Then there’s also a
case for strategic government intervention in support of
‘multi-stakeholder-co-operative enterprise’. Government has a potentially
progressive role to play in helping to finance co-operative enterprise large
and small.Especially in the case of
large co-operative enterprise large injections of capital may be necessary to
attain the economies of scale necessary to remain competitive on global
markets. This is where government can help.And not only State and Federal government – but regions as well.

Underlying rejections of a larger role for government is the notion that
private ownership is “natural”.It is
considered the ‘default” form of property compared with which the public sector is but a
rare exception.

I reject this notion. But I do suppose a large role for competitive private
sector markets into the foreseeable future.A ‘democratic mixed economy’ is realisable in the foreseeable future in
a relatively modest form. To illustrate: I personally envisage an increase in
public revenues and associated outlays by 5 per cent of GDP – achieved perhaps
over a decade, and flowing in to social wage and welfare provisions.As well as public borrowings for
‘nation-building’ infrastructure.

But ‘autarky’ is not
the answer.As I have argued elsewhere:
transnational enterprises from Samsung to Apple respond to ‘the intricacies of
consumer demand’. And they innovate under pressure in the context of
competitive markets where massive economies of scale are necessary.

Nor should we aspire
to ‘nationalise the corner store’.This
has always gone without saying.Though
small-scale co-operatives could also potentially respond to those ‘intricacies’
at the local level as well; while addressing the alienation many workers
experience where they have little creative control over their workplaces and
their labours.

Australian consumers don’t want to be isolated from the innovations that go on in
competitive global markets. And Australian workers also stand to benefit from
jobs-creating foreign investment.I
accept this. No-one (or at least almost no-one) wants ‘socialism in one
country, Stalinist-style’.We can
gradually build up to a robust democratic mixed economy. But the ‘traditional
socialist society’ as epitomised by the old Soviet and Eastern bloc is ‘lost to
us’.

In some ways this is
actually a good thing.The old command
economies produced a ‘dictatorship over needs’ (Fehr, Heller, Markus) where
‘needs’ were defined ‘from above’ and consumers did not enjoy the freedom to
determine their own needs-structures via markets.Markets can be appropriate to the extent to
which they enhance responsiveness to consumer demand, and reasonably enhance
personal determination of needs structures.

But we should not adopt an Ideological perspective which closes off the
strategic extension of the public sector.Nor should we fetishize markets – especially where they fail.And we should not just jettison the Marxist
tradition in its entirety – when there is such a rich and diverse range of
viewpoints and insights even still. Even
though in today’s more plural Left there is greater tolerance towards the
pursuit of ‘ethical’ or even ‘liberal’ socialism.(a good thing)

We probably can define socialism
‘however we choose’.But we should also
ask ourselves what is reasonable when we return to ‘first principles’.Socialism began with notions of economic
equality; notions of ‘equal association’. There was also the communist notion
of ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’. And that notion still retains its force
today.Though quite rightly the modern
Left has also considered that economic equality alone is not enough to achieve
‘The Good Society’.A ‘good society’ and
a ‘strong democracy’ needs to include a participatory and authentic public
sphere.It must encompass mutual respect
and free enquiry.It must support
peoples’ need for economic security; but also peoples’ search for meaning in many-varied
ways.Whereas the Left once focused its attentions
on nationalisation too-narrowly, however, the opposite tendency to reject
public ownership as a strategy is itself ‘Ideological’. Democratic socialists
are learning from past errors.But it is
not a ‘clean break’.Our efforts today
should still be informed to a significant extent by past insights, and past
tradition.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Above: Australia's new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Will we see a shift in the Liberal Party towards small 'l' liberalism? This is a letter to the new PM, expressing the hopes, I believe, of many progressives.

Tristan Ewins

Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Prime Minister in-waiting;

The Abbott Prime Ministership is over.Gone now perhaps are the scepticism about
climate change; the bullying of the ABC; the broken promises and blatant
breaches of mandate.The night the
change in Prime Ministership was announced the ABC coverage suggested that you
and Julie Bishop would bring a ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ perspective to the
Government.

Certainly under Liberal governments across the country there
has been cause to fear the withdrawal of civil liberties.In Victoria freedom of assembly was
compromised.Now, though, can we hope
that a Turnbull Liberal Government will recommit to civil liberties; and maybe
even industrial liberties – as a genuine, philosophically-liberal outlook would
demand?

Pluralism is also core to a robust democracy.Tony Abbott attacked the independence of the
ABC; and the independence and/or existence of various human rights
commissioners. And he attacked the independence of charities who took positions
contrary to his agenda.Hopefully this
ends now.But further: what about a
reformed National Curriculum that fosters political literacy and active
citizenship? Not ‘one sided
indoctrination’ – but exposure to the whole gamut of political opinion ;
preparing students to make informed choices as active citizens?

Hopefully under your leadership the Liberals will now remain within their
mandate.No cuts to education, no
changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS.

But some of us will be hoping for more as well. The austerity of the 2014
Budget was obviously‘a bridge too
far’.Yet austerity needs to be
questioned more broadly as well.We
already have ‘small government’ in this country by OECD standards.We don’t need to venture further down that
path.We don’t need to bludgeon the poor
and vulnerable any further. Neither do
we need to venture further down the path of privatising infrastructure.A non-Ideological view would be open to a
mixed economy – letting the public sector do what it does best.Though of course as a liberal you want the
private sector to do what it does best as well.

What is more we don’t need to dilute the progressive nature of our overall tax
mix further. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership John Howard made it
clear he believed in the principle of progressive taxation. Mr Turnbull: there is a chance now ‘to break
the consensus’ of ‘broadening the base’ in a regressive way. And if balancing the Budget is a priority,
withdrawing superannuation concessions for the most privileged needs to be
considered first before hitting vulnerable or average Australians. There is an
opportunity to genuinely occupy the centre-ground with a position of small ‘l’
liberalism.

On climate change I understand you are committed against an Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS) or a Carbon Tax as a condition of many of your colleagues’ support.But what about much more robust ‘direct
action’?What about ‘direct action’ in
the form of a multi-billion dollar investment in renewables research and
renewables infrastructure?This can be
done without a breach of mandate, and without a breach of trust with your colleagues.

Malcolm; On the rights of refugees, Australia can do more.We can do more for Syrian and Iraqi refugees
especially: whose plight has arisen partly as a consequence of earlier
interventions which we contributed towards.The wars in Iraq destabilised the region; they weakened Iraq, leaving it
with a sectarian Shia government; and this emboldened the Iranians with their
nuclear program. This was the background to the Syrian civil war. Sectarian
government in Iraq was also a contributing factor to the Sunni ISIL movement –
which was fuelled by Sunni resentment.

Now minorities and oppressed groups are suffering in a
region torn apart by war, with maybe over 300,000 dead.We can do more and we should do more. And we
can use our diplomatic leverage with the United States and other countries in
the Pacific region to do more as well.On QandA American folk-singer and progressive activist, Joan Baez
pointed out that if the United States accepted refugees on the same
proportionate scale as Germany that this would mean support for some 3 million humanitarian
migrants. For Australia’s part we can
also radically increase foreign aid – such as to assist Syria’s neighbours to
provide for literally millions of refugees.

Finally, here: I don’t often find myself agreeing with Conservative
commentator, Rowan Dean.And I have a
history of supporting non-discrimination in Australia’s humanitarian migration
program.But maybe the argument that
Christians in these war-torn countries don’t have many places to turn within
their region deserves to be considered with an open mind.I’m not saying Rowan Dean is right.I am saying his claims deserve to be assessed
critically, rigorously and honestly.

Malcolm: I hope this doesn’t cause you to discount all that I have to say – but
certainly I consider myself as being on the left-wing side of the political spectrum.
So for instance I would believe in a more extensive public sector than you
would as an economic liberal. Yet listening to John Hewson speaking regularly
on QandA it is evident that the Liberal Party has made a quantum leap to the
Right over the past few decades. Amidst
this, Hewson’s politics have remained steady. For progressives, the hope will
be that a revivification of the Liberals ‘Wets’ faction will see a shift of the
relative centre towards something more compassionate, generous and just. As
well as an outlook which is more tolerant of pluralism, debate and
dissent.Egalitarianism was long part of
this country’s culture, and of our identity.Let’s celebrate that; and let’s not emulate the American ‘Tea Party’
movement with its extreme social Darwinist Ideology.Instead let’s see some policies aimed at our
most vulnerable Australians: those who experience the most intense human
suffering.Get the National Disability
Insurance Scheme done. But what about a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme as
well?

With many others no doubt, I am hoping with your ascent to the ‘top job’ we can
look forward to a new tri-partisan consensus around human dignity and human
rights; and around compassion and respect for the rights of the poor and
vulnerable.Please do not crush that
hope.

(nb: the author is still Labor to his bootstraps ; but consensus in areas of progressive public policy should be what we're hoping for as well - a shift in the relative centre)

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

Above: Tony Jones is the most talented candidate for hosting QandA ; But he has appeared obviously uncomfortable in the wake of Conservative pressures to exclude Left-wing and other critical opinions

Despite the continual carping on by the Conservatives in
this country – to the effect that the ABC harbours ‘an ‘obvious’ left-wing
bias’ – I have come to fear that rather the opposite is becoming true.Programs like ‘The Drum’ seem increasingly
slanted towards having Conservative or right-libertarian viewpoints at the core
of their programs.Pluralism is certainly no bad thing. But the impression I
get is that radical-Left viewpoints are often excluded.(though I am relieved when I see figures like
Australia Institute spokesperson Richard Denniss included on the ABC)The
most recent example of the QandA broadcast from the “Festival of Dangerous
Ideas” was perhaps an exception to the trend of silencing radical perspectives
– and one that had host Tony Jones appearing very nervous and uncomfortable.
Naomi Klein’s confident and powerful presentation of genuinely radical viewpoints –
including opposition to the detention of refugees, and her arguments for
Western responsibility in the face of the Syrian refugee crisis – certainly
would not have pleased Abbott.Nor would
have her fluent, articulate and effective critique of capitalism.Jones’ absence from recent QandA programs
perhaps hammers home the point that ‘the show might go on without him’. Though he is arguably still be most talented
and competent candidate for the job.

‘QandA’ especially has been ‘under siege’ for years now; with the assault
picking up substantially over recent months. QandA has a long history of supporting
pluralism in the sense of including left-of-centre viewpoints neglected in much
of the monopoly mass media.This is what
Abbott cannot stand.We have a
Government which doesn’t really believe in democracy and pluralism at all.It wants to shut-down and silence opposition
wherever possible.Not just the media,
but for instance charities who dare to engage in political criticism as
well.And of course there is the age-old aim of
‘smashing’ the trade union movement and leaving all working people vulnerable
to the whims and agendas of employers.A
country without an effective labour movement probably would not have identified
the threat of ‘WorkChoices’ until it was too late. WorkChoices is not 'buried and cremated'. It has been locked away to be redeployed some day when peoples' memories have faded; and the labour movement has become too organisationally weak to mobilise public opinion effectively.

“At
the same time decidedly Left-wing participants such have sometimes appeared
quite uncomfortable.(well, that is my
strong impression)And I would suggest
that this is because such participants have been under pressure ‘not to come
across as being overtly radical’ lest they ‘play into Abbott’s hands’. For example I remember noticing
how with Billy Bragg’s appearance there
was very little in the way of discussing socialist politics. I hold Billy Bragg in the highest regard and cannot understand
why else he may have come to sidestep the question with his appearance at
QandA. Yet
if we hold our tongues for fear of a Conservative fear-campaign we largely
concede the field to our enemies.”

Yes QandA should be ‘balanced’.In the
sense that it should include Left, Centre-Left, Centrist, Conservative,
liberal, and even libertarian viewpoints.Even if the ideal of a ‘Perfect Speech Situation’ (Habermas) is
impossible to realise absolutely – that’s not to say we shouldn’t quest after
that ideal. But once we understand that
Abbott’s agenda is not about ‘balance’ – but rather about SILENCING opposition
– we should appreciate how futile it is to adopt a policy of appeasing him.

Furthermore on this theme: The ‘Zaky Mallah’ incident was blown grossly out of
proportion. It was run with as a weapon
with which to bludgeon the program into compliance. While his (Mallah’s) sympathies may not be
ours, nonetheless the observation that anti-Islamic rhetoric was contributing
to ‘radicalisation’ was not far off the mark.The fear campaign- a ‘moral
panic’ that was whipped up in the aftermath of his comments - was
ridiculous.

We have a government who are basically pursuing the aim of
transforming the ABC into a State propaganda mouthpiece.No longer about facilitating a diverse and
participatory public sphere, the government wants an ABC which proclaims the
position of ‘Team Australia’ – so-called.

Here dissidents are considered 'traitors'.Pluralism is
to be ‘stamped out’.In reality the
dissidents who defend rights and liberties against the reactionary push to
stigmatise and delegitimise themcould
be seen as the real ‘patriots’. We see
it in the mass media all the time now: consistently unfavourable coverage of
protests, strikes etc. And I don’t mean
that the dissidents are ‘patriots in some jingoistic sense.’But in the sense of defending that which
perhaps is most worth celebrating and defending in this country.

Finally, the recent Tweet on QandA that subjected Abbott to vile innuendo did
nothing for the cause of defending free and inclusive speech, as well as
genuine pluralism – through the platform of the ABC.We cannot ‘vacatethe field’ when it comes to values,
legitimate interests and policy.But we
must not allow blatant ‘provocations’ that will probably just ‘blow up in our
collective faces’.

Perhaps the Left would be stronger, here, were we less ambiguous when it comes
to free speech.The Conservatives talk
about liberty when it comes to Andrew Bolt’s speech.But they want to delegitimise industrial
liberties as well as free assembly and civil disobedience - with an eye to crushing the social forces
they oppose themselves to.Yet when
George Brandis talks about ‘peoples’ right to be bigots’ – as anti-intuitive as
this may be ; and as dangerous it is to ‘let that Genie out of the bottle’ –
there are real questions about the boundaries of free speech.The tighter we limit free speech the more
likely it is that our enemies will apply those standards to us as well one
day.The Americans turned free speech
into an absolute by making it a foundational element in their very Constitution
; and the associated ‘foundational myths’.This can create a free-for all for bigots on the one hand.But it can provide a shield for civil
liberties and expression as well.

Perhaps we need to be more reserved when it comes to limiting speech.True hate speech and morally vile examples
such as Holocaust denial – which one day could result in history repeating
itself – are exceptions.Let Andrew Bolt
have his rights.But remind him that we
do not all have the platforms that he enjoys.Remind him that genuine pluralism demands a more diverse array of
viewpoints in the mass media. Including the Murdoch Press. Remind him
that progressive viewpoints are systematically excluded in so much of the
monopoly mass media – and especially the Murdoch Press which dominates the highly-influential
tabloid market.

For freedom of speech to be more meaningful it needs to be accompanied by
OPPORTUNITY for speech.That must mean a
participatory public sphere.But also it
should mean reform of our educational curriculum with the aim of developing
peoples critical faculties – including political literacy.That is:Not some one-sided indoctrination process; but rather encouraging people
to be active and informed citizens ; empowered to make informed choices in
keeping with their interests – but also their values.

Let’s defend a pluralist and critical agenda for QandA –
serving as a platform for an inclusive participatory democracy.But let’s not get in the habit of
self-censoring ourselves in instances when there are important opinions of
substance which deserve to be tested in the public sphere.

THE RED FLAG IS STILL FLYING HERE

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING THIS PAGE?

This blog and several other websites are maintained by Tristan Ewins for nothing in return. But I would greatly appreciate any progressive sponsors. This page and others I maintain attract many thousands of visitors every year. Some posts even attract over 1000 readers on their own. So in return for a significant donation your Advertisement or Message could appear here and at my other pages! That is: assuming you support the blog and its message, as well as other sites where your message could appear. Contact me at the following email if you are interested:tristane@bigpond.net.au

Total Pageviews

About Me

Tristan's areas of expertise include Australian and world politics, social theory, education, history, and computer gaming for PC. He considers himself a liberal, and also a socialist, but has also referred to himself as a left social democrat. He says such - conscious that there was once a time when 'social democracy' and 'socialism' were synonymous. Furthermore, Tristan is a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party - specifically its Socialist Left wing. He is also involved in the Australian Fabian Society. Tristan has written for many publications - including a stint freelancing for 'The Canberra Times': the daily broadsheet of the Australian Capital. Tristan's Personal Homepage is here: http://sites.google.com/site/tristanewinsfreelancewriter